HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/19/2008, SS2 - STUDY SESSION TO DISCUSS A PROPOSED 2009-11 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROCESS _ J
Council F�D 8 -o8
j
Itrn N.®4c acenaa wpoizt SS Z
CITY OF SAN LUIS O B 1 S P O
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Kim Murry,Deputy Director,Long Range Planning
SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION TO DISCUSS A PROPOSED 2009-11 GENERAL PLAN
UPDATE PROCESS
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Receive a proposed project plan for the future update to the General Plan Land Use, Circulation
and Parks and Recreation Elements and provide direction to staff as appropriate.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
During goal setting for the 2007-09 Financial Plan, the Council discussed whether or not to
proceed with comprehensive updates of the Land Use and Circulation Elements within the next
two years. Ultimately, the Council decided to focus more on Measure Y priorities in terms of
funding, but to take other important preliminary steps during the next two years so that the City
could be "poised" to tackle a comprehensive update in 2009-11. The Council approved a work
program that identified the preparation of a "project plan" as the first major step in preparing for
a future update process. The Council also funded an update of the City's traffic model as a
prerequisite the future update of the Circulation Element.
Community Development Department staff has been working to develop a project plan for the
proposed update of the Circulation and Land Use Elements with input from other departments
and other jurisdictions. Staff consulted with municipal consultants, the state, county, and other
cities in California to understand timing and cost impacts associated with the proposed general
plan updates. The attached project description and timeline (the Project Plan) reflect this input
and evaluation (including adding the Parks and Recreation Element to_the plan). Key questions
that should be answered after a review and discussion of the proposed plan include:
1. Do the proposed steps seem to follow an appropriate sequence?
2. Is the update comprehensive enough, or should it include added issues or elements?
3. Is the proposed community involvement process sufficient?
4. Does the schedule seem reasonable?
DISCUSSION
Background and Getting Started "on the Right Foot"
Updates of the Land Use and Circulation Elements were identified as an "other Council
objective" in the 2007-09 Financial Plan, with direction to develop a project plan describing the
funding and administrative steps necessary to complete the process. The Council authorized.
SS 2 -i
General Plan Update Process Page 2
$200,000 in funding in the 2007-09 Financial Plan to initiate development of a"base year"traffic
model in preparation for the General Plan update process. The Council also indicated that the
update should include an evaluation of economic development policies and programs. This is
reflected in the proposed project plan as an integral part of the Land Use Element update.
Assuring that the Council and staff are "in alignment" regarding the proposed scope and process
for updating major aspects of the City's .General Plan is essential in order to achieve a positive
and timely outcome. Differences about the process, for example, surfaced late in the update of
the Conservation and Open Space Element and resolving those differences delayed the process
by over one year and caused a substantial amount of confusion and contention. Therefore,
coming to agreement on fundamentals of "the plan" at the very beginning is essential and is the
foremost purpose of this report.
The Project Plan for the General Plan Update
Over the last several years, City staff has used a standard format to prepare internal plans to
implement major projects and complex undertakings. This format is often called a "project
plan." Project plans are helpful as an organizational tool and for providing a common
understanding about a forthcoming process, in terms of opportunities, constraints, expected
results and other key factors. Staff has drafted a project plan for the update of the Land Use and
Circulation Elements for review by the Council (see Attachment 1).
Key components of the plan include a description of each phase in the update, the order in which
they occur, and a list of tasks associated with each phase. Some of the phases overlap and some
must run sequentially. The graphic later in this report summarizes the key components of the
process, including: community participation, environmental review, and the expected products
from each phase.
"General Plan 101" Overview
California state law requires each city and county to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general
plan "for the physical development of the county or city, and any land outside its boundaries
which bears relation to its planning" (Government Code Section 65300). A city's general plan
identifies the community goals that relate to land use, circulation, environment, infrastructure,
recreation, safety, economic and social issues. The plan, through each element, provides a basis
for local decision-making and involves the community in the process of identifying goals and
policies to define how the community should respond to needs for physical development over
time.
The Governor's Office of Planning and Research publishes "General Plan Guidelines," which
state that the general plan is a tool for planning over a specific time horizon. The planning period
associated with this time horizon may vary depending on the issues - for example, geologic
hazards most likely will not change quickly, so goals to address these issues will remain current .
for longer periods of time. While a local jurisdiction may choose a time horizon that serves its
particular needs, most cities develop general plans that look forward 15-20 years in order to plan
for future needs. The exception to this rule-of-thumb relates to the housing element which, by
state mandate, must be updated every five years to address a seven-year planning period.
SSz-2
General Plan Update Process Page 3
Regardless of the time horizon addressed in the City's General Plan, planning is a continuous
process. The General Plan needs to be reviewed and revised regularly to keep it current when
new information becomes available and to reflect changing community needs and values. The
General Plan may be amended up to four times a year. If a council finds itself making frequent
piecemeal amendments or if existing policies do not seem to provide guidance for projects under
consideration, the jurisdiction should consider a plan update or major plan revision. A general
plan that is based on outdated information or values will not provide adequate direction for day-
to day decision-making..
Overall Status of the City's Land Use and Circulation Elements
While the Land.Use Element and Circulation Element have been amended many times since
1994 to incorporate minor adjustments, they have not had a recent, thorough review of how well
they reflect the needs and priorities of the City's residents, businesses, and landowners.
Significant amendments to the Land Use Element have been made in response to update of the
Conservation and Open Space Element in April 2006 and when the Housing Element was
adopted in 2004.
Planning or development of the expansion areas identified in 1994 is nearing completion: the
Orcutt Area Specific Plan (last of the expansion area plans) is currently in the public hearing
approval process and the Margarita Area and Airport Area Specific Plans are complete. In
addition, many of the programs identified in the,Land Use and Circulation Elements are on-going
or have been completed (The Council Reading file contains the latest annual report on the
General Plan). As can be expected, environmental, economic, and societal trends have likely
changed since 1994. There may be new needs and priorities that create the need for new land use
or circulation programs. Recent changes to state law to address global climate change are driving
the need to ensure our land use policies support reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
These circumstances warrant a comprehensive look at the Land Use Element and Circulation
Element to chart a vision and plan for growth over the next 15-20 years. This process must be
based on community participation and stakeholder `buy-in Since land uses and traffic and
circulation decisions are interwoven, the Circulation Element and Land Use Element should be
developed and considered concurrently.
I. Land Use Element Situation
In January 2006, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) adopted significant changes
to the City's Sphere of Influence (SOI), which identifies "... the probable physical boundary and
service area of a local agency or municipality." As a result, the SOI, which is considered to be a
20 year planning tool, was expanded in eight areas to encompass an additional 3,328 acres
around the City limits. The property owners of one of the larger areas added to the SOI, the area
roughly bounded by Los Osos Valley Road, O'Connor Way, Foothill Boulevard and the existing
City limits, are expressing an interest in annexation and development and will make a
presentation to the Council the night this item is studied. The Land Use Element still shows
these areas as greenbelt/open space, suggesting a need for coordination and public review in the
context of an overall planning strategy.
SSZ- 3
I
General Plan Update Process Page 4
2. Circulation Element Situation
The Circulation Element was developed in tandem with the Land Use Element and its policies
and programs are based on the land uses identified in the Land Use Element. An update to the
Land Use Element will necessitate a corresponding update to the City's Circulation Element to
address associated street network and operational changes. In addition, the Circulation
Element's policies and programs should be updated given on-going changes in land use, travel
behavior, regional traffic patterns, environmental conditions, transportation technology, and
opportunities in shifting modes of transit.
One example of an improved technology that will be available for the Circulation Element is a
multi-modal or socio-economic transportation model. The current Circulation Element was
based on information generated from a road-based traffic model. Given the desired (and
increasingly necessary) shift away from single-occupant vehicle trips to bicycle and mass transit
options, a different model may be needed to evaluate transportation deficiencies, future needs,
land use impacts, and potential improvements. The focus of the last Circulation Element was on
moving cars. Best practices now focus on moving people.
3. Other General Plan Amendments Anticipated
The evaluation and revision of these two mandatory elements may prompt the need to revise
other elements of the general plan to ensure consistency between all City goals, policies and
programs. Amendments to the Noise Element and Safety Element would fall into this category.
In addition, the Parks and Recreation Element and the Water and Wastewater Element have been
evaluated by staff recently for more comprehensive updates. The Parks and Recreation Element
was updated in April 2001 and was scheduled to be updated again in 2006. Due to other
priorities, this scheduled update did not occur. The Parks and Recreation Department staff has
requested that the update process for the Land Use and Circulation Elements include an update of
the Parks and Recreation Element. This will involve the evaluation of parks facilities and
programs in addition to looking at demographic trends in order to develop revised policies and
programs to better serve the community. Since much of the background work will be done with
the proposed update process, staff supports adding this element to the workscope.
The Utilities Department is currently developing a project plan and the public outreach
component for an update to the Water and Wastewater Element. The last revision to this element
was completed before many of the major water supply projects were initiated. The policies and
programs within this element relate to securing on-going water sources to accommodate the
growth envisioned with General Plan"build out"
Now that the Nacimiento Water Project is under construction, operational and service issues need
to be re-evaluated to confirm existing policies and make modifications where appropriate. These
operational and service issues are not dependent on the information that will be discussed during
the update of the other elements and hence this Element will be updated independently. Basic
policies, such as creating and maintaining a water supply for the buildout of the General Plan are
not expected to change. However, if there is a change in the General Plan buildout, this would
SS 2 -L)
General Plan Update Process Page 5
affect the acre feet of water needed, and would be addressed as a subsequent amendment to the
Water and Wastewater Element at the time the Land Use Element is updated and adopted.
Work Underway to Begin Update
Because of the time that has passed since the last comprehensive General Plan update and the
previous Council direction, several activities are already underway. As previously noted, the
City is in the process of updating its Traffic Model. The Council also authorized the creation of a
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory to determine a baseline carbon footprint of the community
which will be used to compare land use and circulation alternatives for future development.
Finally, staff has prepared a work program for Council to consider for the process of updating the
General Plan.
The contract to update the base-year traffic model was awarded to LSA Associates in February
2008. The initial stage will update the base-year traffic model to a multi-modal based model
analyzing new trend information and city/county demographics for trip types. Vehicle, bicycle
and transit surveys will be conducted to update the model to reflect current conditions. The
model being developed will provide a solid baseline assessment from which to develop the
forecast model. Forecasting will be important in order to evaluate different land use and
development scenarios proposed as part of the Land. Use Element and Circulation Element
update. Development of the forecast model will require additional consultant assistance and this
cost and associated work is reflected in the project plan.
In April, 2008, Council authorized Community Development staff to pursue membership in
ICLEI, Local Governments for Sustainability, to give the City access to tools for conducting a
greenhouse gas emissions inventory, including modeling software. Staff has been working with
a graduate student from Cal Poly who is collecting the necessary data and performing the data
entry into the modeling software. We expect to have preliminary results to share by the end of
August. This information will be used when evaluating land use and circulation alternatives in
the General Plan update process.
The Proposed Project Plan for Completing the Update
As mentioned earlier, the Community Development Department staff has been working to
develop a project plan for the proposed update with input from other departments and other
jurisdictions. Staff also consulted with municipal consultants, the state, county, and other cities
in California to understand timing and cost impacts associated with the proposed general plan
updates. The attached project description and timeline (the Project Plan) reflect this evaluation
and the graphic below summarizes the key components of the process, including: community
participation, environmental review, and the expected products from each phase.
ss2 -s
i i j y
General Plan Update Process Page 6
CA
e 3 i
a
i
C
•� C = v + I r C
r
r J t9 U L J
W U _ c - 15 a U U
LL
a L
z
0
0-4
rl G J
LLj
n
a s E <
Q `" = = =
O w < w
a T o
u �
J J
rW
V
1. J.
n
J• i. 'L 3 -C 7
u G C
j O q
} C
•i. = E ,i. u = CL
2 U r p >
752
O
V:
:U
1. Planning Tasks:
The key components of the planning process include data gathering (Background Report),
visioning, alternatives analysis, preparing a draft plan, preparing a draft Environmental Impact
Report (EIR), review by advisory bodies, and Council adoption of the Plan and certification of
SS 2-ln
i I
General Plan Update Process Page 7
the EIR. The public review process and the environmental review process (called CEQA —
California Environmental Quality Act) will happen concurrently within these components of the
planning process.
2. CEQA:
The Background Report (listed as a product of Phases 1& 2 in the chart above) is also used to
document the current status of the City for purposes of environmental review. As impact and
mitigation information is developed, the goals and policies of the plan may be modified.
Mitigation measures may become development policies and implementation programs.
3. Community Participation:
Community participation will be a significant component of every phase of the General Plan
update. Various forms of communication are planned to be used throughout the update. Staff
recommends forming a Citizens' Advisory Committee with a variety of members representing
diverse community and stakeholder interest groups, advisory body members, neighborhood
groups, and Council appointments. The selected General Plan update consultant will be required
to assist with developing a public participation plan to include speakers' bureaus, the citizens'
advisory committee, newsletters, surveys, workshops, interviews, and media outreach.
Update Timeframe
It is important that the City set realistic timeframes for completion of the various stages of work
that will go into the General Plan update. The time allocated to each task must allow for a
meaningful consideration of the issues and priorities as well as public review and participation.
It must also take into account the fiscal constraints facing the City and the cost of the update in
terms of staff time and consultant fees.
The Governor's Office of Planning and Research notes that most jurisdictions need
approximately two years to complete a new general plan. Depending on the complexity of issues
and the amount of public debate, some general plans may take longer to prepare or update. The
proposed project plan reflects about a three and one half year process. Aside from the initial four
to six months for preparing background data and reports, this time will be spent providing
information to the public through various types of media and creating forums for input and
discussion leading to the Council's adoption of the update.
This project plan is being provided to Council as a "road map" for the General Plan update
process. The plan lays out the tasks and the framework within which issues will be evaluated.
No action is anticipated by Council at this time, but any direction to staff will be incorporated
into the plan.
FISCAL IMPACT
The following is an estimate of costs associated with the update of the Circulation, Land Use,
and Parks and Recreation Elements over an almost four year period. The salaries of regular staff .
working on the project are not included as part of this chart. Staff from all departments will be
SS2 -1
1
General Plan Update Process Page 8
involved in the update process. In reviewing the experience of other communities, the typical
commitment is an average of two full-time equivalent (FTE) staff positions for an update process
in addition to the consultant and temporary help assistance. The update process will have varying
time commitments during the life of the update, but on average, the City can expect to dedicate
two existing FTEs to this effort. City staff involved to the greatest extent will be Community
Development and Public Works staff,.but staff from Parks and Recreation, Utilities, Fire, Police,
Finance and Administration will also be involved in this process.
Staff/administrative costs Temp help/intern salaries $ 50,000
Consultant fees Background & issues, fiscal &GP reports $ 550,000
Consultant fees Environmental Review $ 400,000
Public outreach Survey, charrettes, outreach, public meetings $ 100,000
Consultant fees Traffic model enhancement $ 200,000
-Printing& mailing Draft and final documents $ 40,000
Contingency Estimated at.5% $ 67,000
TOTAL $1,407,000
Funding the Update: Key 2009-11 Goal-Setting Issue
Community Development staff surveyed other jurisdictions to understand how each paid for their
general plan updates. The following summarizes this information:
1. Pay for updates with the General Fund. A vision for the community benefits the entire
community and, as such, should be paid for by General Fund monies.
2. Collect a General Plan Implementation Fee with permits or entitlements (in order to issue
building permits or entitlements, a city must have a valid and up-to-date General Plan
with which the entitlement or permit conforms). Mitigation Fee Act —jurisdiction can
impose fee if decision to use the service is voluntary and the fee is reasonably related to
the cost to provide the service.
a. Cost of General Plan Update is estimated to occur every 10 years. This cost is
divided by 10 to capture a yearly fee. The yearly cost is divided by the annual
construction valuation to obtain a % of project construction value amount that is
assigned to building permits for new buildings (i.e. Belmont).
b. Cost of General Plan Update is estimated to occur every 10 years. Half of cost is
included in fee structure and half comes from the General Fund. 50% of all
building permit fees are attributed to General Plan maintenance (i.e. County of
San Luis Obispo).
c. 15% surcharge on all planning and building permit fees for General Plan
maintenance (i.e. San Rafael)
d. General Plan implementation fee (.001) is charged against the assessed value of
every building permit. (i.e. Stockton)
SS2 - 9
General Plan Update Process Page 9
e. Land to be annexed pays a fee based on its proportional share of growth (by acre)
anticipated to happen over the following 20 years multiplied by the cost of the
General Plan update.
Even with the financing strategies listed above, cost recovery occurs over a long period of time.
While the Council may direct staff to research and adopt a fee for future applications, the cost for
updating the General Plan in the near future will need to be paid for out of General Fund monies
and approximately$1.4 million will need to be budgeted when the project is launched
For this reason, the commitment to move forward on a comprehensive update to the City's Land
Use, Circulation, and Parks and Recreation Elements Update will be a major resource allocation
decision for the Council as it considers major City goals as of the 2009-11 Financial Plan
process. And even with Measure Y funds, funding initiatives like this will be difficult given the
fiscal challenges facing us from possible State budget takeaways, uncertain performance of key
revenues like sales and property taxes and the recent results of the binding arbitration decision.
ALTERNATIVES
1. No Additional Direction. The Council may choose not to provide direction to staff on
changes to the project plan if the document is satisfactory as written.
2. Continue Discussion. The Council may choose to continue discussion if more information
is needed on any particular component of the project plan.
3. Defer Comprehensive Update. Proceed with a more issue specific update, with issues to be
identified at a subsequent Council meeting.
ATTACHMENT
Project plan for Land Use Element , Circulation Element, and Parks and Recreation Element
update
COUNCIL READING FILE
2007 Annual Report of the General Plan
T:\LUE Update\Project Plan(CAR).DOC
SS2 -9
General Plan Update Process Attachment 1
Land Use Element and Circulation Element Update Project Plan
The discussion below provides an overview of the general phases of the process. The narrative
summary is followed by a more detailed task list. The project will begin with a request for
general fund monies as part of the 2009-11 Financial Plan process. Consultant services will be
secured through a request for proposal (RFP) process (most likely separate consultants for the
overall project and the EIR). The consultants, with staff direction and participation, will develop
the following:
Early Policy Guidance and Scoping
A public participation plan will be developed with the consultant and an evaluation of existing
General Plan policies and goals will be conducted. A working group of City staff will form.
Collection of data begins.
Background Report/Data Collection
A Background Report will be developed. This report provides information on a wide range of
topics including economics (jobs, shopping, and employers), public safety (fire, medical and
police services), a housing inventory, parks and open space inventory, environmental resource
inventory, land use inventory (including properties included within the City's Sphere of
Influence), public services, and safety/hazard issues. The Draft Background report is an
objective, policy neutral documentation of existing conditions and the regulatory framework.
The report serves as the description for the settings portion of the Environmental Document for
r
the subsequent update to the General Plan.
The data required for development and validation of the traffic model includes details of land
uses by square foot and use types by parcel. Parcel-level data will be verified using the City's
existing geographic information system, (GIS) and permit tracking information, as well as traffic
counts, field verification, pre-tracking system permit information and address file information.
Council will help appoint representatives to a citizens' task force which will be comprised of
stakeholder group representatives, advisory body members, and volunteers.
A survey instrument will be designed and distributed as guided by the public participation plan
developed early on in the update process.
Traffic Model Development
The City's existing traffic model has worked fairly well in predicting vehicle traffic behavior and
impacts for the last several years. The model is deficient in that it does not take into account
multi-modal behavior and regional and local land use and transportation. As such, bicycle, mass
transit and pedestrian trips have never been evaluated as part of the circulation setting for the
City. Public Works Department staff are currently working with LSA Associates to update the
base-year traffic model. The model will need to be updated to provide forecasting and
alternatives analysis.. This may involve data collection including: Origin-Destination Trip
Collection, trip logs, frequency and travel time data collection.
SSZ - ID
C
General Plan Update Process Attachment 1 Project.Plan
Issues and Opportunity Report
To understand the extent of review and update required for the Land Use Element and
Circulation Element, it is necessary to understand how well the existing policies and programs
are serving the community. The Issues and Opportunities report will focus the community's
attention on key issues, changes and opportunities that have major policy implications as the City
of San Luis Obispo considers how to guide development over the next 20 years. The report uses
information contained in the draft Background Report along with survey responses, workshop
input, City Staff observations and outreach efforts to summarize the issues identified. The report
will discuss existing Land Use and Circulation Elements policies and implementing programs to
determine where changes may be appropriate (i.e. completed programs most likely do not need to
be re-evaluated). These goals, policies and programs will provide the core of topics foF public
review.
The report will not reach conclusions or suggest the manner in which the City should proceed in
the development of the General Plan, but it will identify issues of critical importance. Questions
for the community include: Is the vision of how the community wants to grow still fairly
accurate or have changes occurred calling for a new or revised vision? Are there different ways
to achieve that vision that weren't available or utilized 15 years ago? Knowing what the
community vision is and how it may have changed will guide the scoping for the update process.
Alternatives Evaluations & Selection
Staff and the consultant will work with the community, the advisory bodies, and City Council to
develop, evaluate, and select land use and policy alternatives for evaluation. There will be
traffic, fiscal; environmental, and community vision trade-offs associated with each alternative.
Once a preferred alternative is selected, the land use plan can be drafted and a project description
defined for environmental review.
General Plan Preparation& Environmental Review
Policies and programs are developed at this stage to respond to the land use plan. Where land
use changes are identified that may have associated impacts (i.e. noise, air quality, traffic, etc.)
policy additions or changes to other elements may be identified as part of the environmental
review process. A draft EIR is then prepared based on the project description and a selected_
range of alternatives. Fiscal analysis of the General Plan is included at this stage.
Public Hearings and Adoption
The draft general plan update and environmental document are evaluated through the public
hearing process. A final EIR and General Plan documents and adopting resolutions and
ordinances are prepared.
The chart on the next page shows how the community participation, general plan update and
environmental review interact throughout the process.
SS2 -11
General Plan Update Process Attachment 1 —Project Plan
TASK DEFINITION
Staff from all departments will be involved in the update process. In reviewing the experience of
other communities, the typical commitment is an average of two full-time equivalent (FTE) staff
positions for an update process in addition to the consultant and temporary help assistance. The
update process will have varying time commitments during the life of the update, but on average,
the City can expect to dedicate two existing FTEs to this effort. City staff involved to the
greatest extent will be Community Development and Public Works staff, but staff from Parks
and Recreation, Utilities, Fire, Police, Finance and Administration will also be involved in this
process.
GENERAL PLAN PREPARATION PROCESS
PHASES COMMUNITY PLANNING TASKS CEQA PRODUCTS
PARTICIPATION
'Fou nhall Meetings Sit reys' Identih ing the Issucs
1&2 and Imcricvvs Background
Creation ol'C'nmmonitp F.nrirunmemal Silting FP'r
Adrisory('onnnittcc
Collecting and Anuhv.ing Inlirclnntwn Esiain l ilions
1"ownhall p7rctings.Sure;., Developing u Vision
and Into icw
3fi 'I'ownhull Meetings and Reviewing Alicrnutiscs .Altrmatives Evaluation
Workshops
Initial Druli
Committee Workshops Preparing the Plan Project Description
Preparing the EIR Impact Analysis DEIR
To%%nhaII Meetings and
7&S kcvicscing the Plan and EIR Public Rcvicw Public Hcarinbs
1 Icurines
PCCHC7CCi
C'ertilving the FIR and Adopting the Response ul CanunrnLs,Finding,, Others
Plan ;ind C• Yi•alien
Phase 1 —Program Initiation: 4 months May—August 2009
During this phase, following consultant selection, the General Plan Team will establish the
foundation for the General Plan Update, including tools to be used during the update, meeting
with the Planning Commission and Council and initiating the public outreach program.
Task 1.1 Initiate Program
Authorization from Council
Consult Office of Planning and Research website
Distribute RFP
Evaluate RFP responses and select consultant team
Identify internal project team—together with consultant this becomes the
"General Plan Team"
Task 1.2 Scoping
Develop a detailed work schedule w/consultant including schedules for
community outreach and participation.
SS2- 12
General Plan Update Process Attachment 1 —Project Plan
Review and discuss overall format and organization of the GP
Determine planning area boundary
Review GIS and other data sources
Task 1.3 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session: Project Initiation and
General Plan overview. Appoint the General Plan Working Group.
Task 1.4 Land Use Database—define and format GIS land use database for use in the General
Plan update. This provides basis for development estimates.
Task 1.5 Base Maps —define and format base maps for use in the General Plan update.
Base maps are used for display presentation and throughout process. Uniform
legends and title blocks are developed.
Task 1.6 Project Website— initiate project website. This will provide current information
throughout the process for status, download documents and presentations and provide
a forum for public comment submittal to the City.
Task 1.7 Newsletter—The General Plan Update Process—create and distribute (possibly via
utility billing)
Task 1.8 Community Workshops—General Plan update process
Provide community and citizen groups an overview of what the General Plan does
and how the process will progress over the next two-three years.
Phase Products:
• Detailed Project Schedule
• Staff Reports
• Project Base Maps
• Land Use Database
• Newsletter
• Website
• Community Workshop Summary
Phase 2—Background Report: 6 months August 2009- February 2010
During this phase, the General Plan Team will update information on existing conditions and
trends and identify the regulatory framework affecting the issues-to be addressed in General Plan
Policy. Preparation of the background report includes review of documents such as the existing
General Plan elements, Specific Plans, SOI report, Airport Land Use Plan, EIRs, Chamber of
Commerce Strategic Plan, needs assessments, etc. Interviews and outreach to Cal Poly, Cuesta,
advisory bodies, interest groups, and other agencies and organizations occurs at this time. The
Citizens' Advisory Committee is formed. The objective is to develop and document a
comprehensive picture of the existing conditions found in the City.
Task 2.1 Hire intems/outreach to faculty and students to assist with validation of parcel data for
traffic model.
SSZ - l3
� 1
General Plan Update Process Attachment 1 —Project Plan
Task 2.2 Administrative Draft Background Report-data collection to address topics:
Introduction
Regional Setting
Planning Area Boundary
Organization and Purpose of the Background Report
Land Use
City Limits and Planning Area
Land Use Planning in San Luis Obispo
General Plan Summary
Zoning Summary
Existing Land Use
Sphere of Influence (SOI)
Annexation
Other Plans (i.e. Cal Poly Master Plan, County SLO plan) and Land Use
Regulations Affecting San Luis Obispo
Agencies Concerned with Land Use Planning in San Luis Obispo (i.e. Airport Land
Use Commission)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Results
Housing
Housing Unit/Land Capacity Inventory
Progress Report on Housing Element Update
Demographics and Economic Conditions
Historic Population Growth
Population Characteristics
Population Projections
Employment Projections
Economic Conditions in San Luis Obispo
Chamber of Commerce Economic Strategy Report
Fiscal Considerations
Revenue Sources/Available Capital Improvement Plan funding mechanisms
Expenditures
Transportation and Circulation
Street and Road System
Parking
Bus Service
Rail Service
Air Transportation
Taxi Service
Ride Sharing
Pedestrian Network
Bikeways
SS 2-1q
General Pian Update Process Attachment 1 —Project Plan
Public Facilities and Services
General Government
Water Service
Sewage Collection and Treatment
Storm Drainage and Flood Protection
Schools
Fire Protection
Law Enforcement
Communications
Solid Waste Disposal
Emergency and Medical Services
Recreational Resources
Parks and Recreation Facilities
Recreational Programs —Public and Commercial
Natural Resources
Open Space & Viewshed
Water Resources — Supply& Quality
Air Resources
Historic and Cultural Resources
Energy Resources
Native Minerals Resources
Riparian and Wetland Resources
Wildlife and Habitat Resources & Corridors
Agricultural Resources
Health and Safety
Seismic and Geologic Hazards
Flood Hazards
Fire Hazards
Noise(Traffic, Railroad, Airport, Commercial Activity—Noise Contours)
Air Quality(Stationary Sources, Sensitive Receptors)
Emergency Response
Airport Hazards
Hazardous Materials/Waste (Summary of Major Producers/Users)
Urban Form and Design
Major Physical Elements
Community Form and Character
Commercial Areas
Industrial Areas
Neighborhood Areas
Streets and Highways
Principal Landmarks/Historic Resources
Major Developments in the Planning Stages
SS2- �S
' � 1
General Plan Update Process Attachment 1 —Project Plan
Task 2.3 Develop Survey/Outreach Questions
Task 2.4 Interview and Outreach to Interest Groups
Task 2.5 Appoint Citizen's Advisory Committee and hold meetings
Task 2.6 Transportation Forecast Model Development
Finalize Transportation Data collection
Origin-Destination Trip Collection
Trip Logs, Frequency and Travel Time Data Collection
Transportation Model Review and Determination
Collect County&Other Jurisdiction Land-Use and Traffic Forecasting Data
Prepare deficiency reports and future needs assessments
Task 2.7 Public Review Draft Background Report
Task 2.8 Community Workshop—Background Report—Discussion of Issues
Task 2.9 Newsletter—Background Report Overview
Phase Products:
• Administrative Draft Background Report
• Survey Instrument
• Interview Responses
• Public Review Draft Background Report
• Newsletter
• Website Update
• Citizens' Advisory Committee Meetings Summary
• Community Workshop Summary
Phase 3—Issues, Opportunities,and Vision—4 months January—May 2010
During this phase, the General Plan Team will summarize key issues and opportunities based on
Draft Background Report Findings, input from the community through workshops and
stakeholder interviews, City staff and consultant observations, and feedback from the Joint Study
Sessions. Following community workshops, the General Plan Team will develop an overall
Land Use and Circulation vision for the future of San Luis Obispo based on community input.
Task.3.1 Issues and Opportunities Summary
Task 3.2 Newsletter- Overview of Issues and Opportunities
Task 3.3 Community Workshops: Issues and Opportunities
Address General and Specific Areas: Dalidio, SOI areas, Special Design Areas
charrettes (Foothill, Madonna, Grand, Monterey, Sunset Drive-in)
Task 3.4 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session
SS2 -1(4
General Plan Update Process Attachment 1 —Project Plan
Phase Products:
• Summary of Key Issues and Opportunities
• Draft Vision Statement
• Staff Reports
• Newsletter
• Citizen's Advisory Committee Meetings Summary
• Community Workshop Summary
• Website Update
Phase 4 - Alternatives Report—6-7 months May—November 2010
During this phase, the General Plan Team will work with the community, Advisory Bodies,
Planning Commission and the Council to develop, evaluate, and select land use and circulation
policy alternatives to create a framework for the new General Plan.
Task 4.1 Develop Policy and Land Use and Circulation Alternatives
The Team will develop three alternative growth scenarios for land use needs for the
community based on data research and analysis, the public input process and
population projections for the area. Supporting maps, graphics, and narrative suitable
for public review to illustrate the range of alternatives will be developed. The Team
will develop policy alternatives to address the key issues and opportunities identified
in Phase 3.
Task 4.2 Evaluate Growth Alternatives —The Team will evaluate the three selected alternatives
to understand impacts to existing/programmed public facilities, impacts to the
environment, and fiscal implications. Population projections based on land use build-
out will be developed.
Task 4.3 Administrative Draft Issues and Alternatives Report—from Tasks 2 and 3
Task 4.4 Public Draft Issues and Alternatives Report—After Internal Review/Comment
Task 4.5 Newsletter Alternatives
Task 4.6 Citizens' Advisory Committee Meetings - Alternatives
Task 4.7 Community Workshops—Alternatives
Task 4.8 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session
Phase Products:
• Administrative Draft Issues and Alternatives Report
• Public Review Draft Issues and Alternatives Report
Staff Reports
• Newsletter
• Citizens' Advisory Committee Meetings Summary
• Workshop Summary
• Website Update
SS 2 -1-
General Plan Update Process Attachment 1 —Project Plan
Phase 5—Policy Document—7 months October 2010- April 2011
During this phase, the General Plan Team will draft a set of goals, policies, and implementation
measures for the Land Use and Circulation Elements in addition to changes that are needed to
other elements to ensure consistency.
Task 5.1 Administrative Draft Goals and Policy Report to include vision statements and goals,
policies and implementation measures
• Land Use Element including economic development policies. Appropriateness of
current land use designations & policies for meeting residential, commercial and
industrial needs of community. Land use guidance needed to achieve urban form
desired. Economic balance. Identifying new SOI boundary.
• Circulation Element — establish baseline of circulation improvements needed to
support projected growth within City at acceptable service levels. Identify scope and
timing of improvements.
• Global climate change policy identification
• Housing Element updates resulting from other changes
• Noise Element updates resulting from other changes
• Safety Element updates resulting from other changes
• Water/Wastewater Element updates resulting from other changes
• Conservation and Open Space Element updates resulting from changes
• Parks and Recreation Element updates resulting from other changes
• Setting information from Background Report will be bound separately to be shared by
General Plan and EIR
Task 5.2 Land Use Diagram — draft diagram that shows preferred alternative. Identify land use
designations, population density and building intensity.
Task 5.3 Circulation Diagram—show preferred alternative.
Task 5.4 Citizens' Advisory Committee Meetings
Task 5.5 Community Workshops
Task 5.6 Public Review Draft Policy Document
Task 5.7 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Session
Phase Products:
• Administrative Draft Policy Document
• Public Review Draft Policy Document
• Citizens' Advisory Committee Meetings Summary
• Community Workshop Summary
• Staff Reports
• Website Update
SS2 _19
General Plan Update Process Attachment 1 —Project Plan
Phase 6—Environmental Impact Report—7-8 months January—August 2011
During this phase, the consultant with input from staff, will prepare a Draft EIR analyzing the
potential impacts of the Draft General Plan (project description). The EIR will be designed to
meet the requirements of CEQA and to streamline future City consideration of development and
public works projects consistent with the General Plan.
Task 6.1 Notice of Preparation Distribution
Task 6.2 Planning Commission Scoping Meeting
Task 6.3 Administrative Draft EIR
Executive Summary- setting, impacts, mitigations, & alternatives
Introduction
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Land Use
Circulation
Sustainability and Global Climate Change
Other Elements as impacted by proposed changes
Alternatives Analysis
Cumulative Impacts
Other Regional CEQA Issues
Fiscal Analysis
Task 6.4 Internal staff review of Administrative Draft EIR
Task 6.5 Public Draft EIR—45 day public review.
Task 6.6 Citizens' Advisory Committee meetings
Phase Products:
• Staff reports
• Administrative Draft EIR
• Public Review Draft EIR
• Citizens' Advisory Committee Meetings Summary
• Website Update
Phase 7—Public Review—6 months August 2011 —March 2012
During this phase, the General Plan Team will assist the community, advisory bodies, Planning
Commission and City Council in the review of the Draft General Plan and Draft EIR,
culminating in Council direction for changes to the Draft General Plan. The Citizens' Advisory
Committee members will be encouraged to attend and participate during the public hearings.
Task 7.1 Newsletter—draft General Plan and draft EIR
Task 7.2 Advisory Body Hearings
Task 7.3 Planning Commission hearings
SS 2 -19
General Plan Update Process Attachment 1 —Project Plan
Task 7.4 City Council Hearings
Phase Products:
• Newsletter
• Staff reports
• Website update
Phase 8—Final Documents.and Adoption—5-6 months March 2012—August 2012
During this phase, the General Plan Team will prepare the final versions of the General Plan
Goals and Policies Report and the EIR for final review and adoption by the Planning
Commission and City Council. The Citizens' Advisory Committee members will be encouraged
to attend and participate during the public hearings.
Task 8.1 Respond to Public Comments on Draft EIR (DEIR)
Comments received during public review of the DEIR are responded to by
Consultant.
Task 8.2 Prepare Final EIR (FEIR)
Overriding considerations (if needed) developed for certification.
Task 8.3 Final General Plan Documents—corrections/updates
Task 8.4 Adoption Hearings
Phase Products:
• Camera-Ready General Plan and EIR documents, CDs, and PDFs or HTML for web
Public Outreach Program
Public outreach is a key part of the update program and the Public Participation Plan will be
developed with the consultant's assistance. The outreach needs to be initiated early to make the
community aware of opportunities to establish an accurate understanding of the process. Timing
of the outreach is listed within the phases and is summarized below.
Project Website:
Interactive website containing current information on status of the project, downloadable
documents and presentations, and a way to send information and input to appropriate staff.
Establish a General Plan update (moderated) blog. Monitor the site to ensure responses are
appropriate for publishing.
Online survey
E-Updates:
Develop an email contact list and send regular updates to maintain interest and generate
participation. Work with Chamber of Commerce a-blast to get information out to business
community.
SS2- 2c
r�
Cr
General Plan Update Process Attachment 1 —Project Plan
Newsletter:
Produce graphic-rich newsletter that provide information about process at key points. These can
be developed as PDFs to email to list above. Distribute flyers through the schools.
Media Outreach:
Meet with The Tribune, New Times, and SLO Journal staff at beginning of process to develop
contact and conduit for information exchange. Contact radio stations for Public Service
Announcements. Prepare news releases on the process and key elements of the update. Keep an
on-going update on Channel 20.
Surveys:
Prepare a survey instrument and distribute to the,community.
Citizens'Advisory Committee:
Citizens' Advisory Committees have been used to gather on-going input from community
groups.. The role of the group needs to be clearly defined and establishing membership of the
group participants can present challenges as there are a multitude of stakeholder groups and
limited membership available. Size of the group is critical — too small is not representative,
however more than about 15 becomes unwieldy. The Consultant will assist with defining
effective methods for community outreach and participation. The Council will be asked during
the data collection phase to appoint Citizens' Advisory Committee members who will participate
throughout the process.
Presentations to Community interest groups(Speakers Bureau):
Offer to speak before community and stakeholder groups. These groups include Kiwanis;
Rotary, Board of Realtors, Home Builders Association, American Institute of Architects, schools,
Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Association, City .residents —both current and future,
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods, Downtown Association, the Environmental Center of San
Luis Obispo County, Sierra Club, County of San Luis Obispo, Land Conservancy, Cal
Poly/Cuesta, Elementary, Junior High and High Schools, San Luis Obispo Council of
Governments, Caltrans, All City Departments, Air Pollution Control District, PGE, Gas
Company, Phone company, cable and other utility providers, Regional Transit Authority,
Amtrak, Union Pacific Railroad, Transportation providers (both medical and school), Airport
operations; County Visually impaired committee, CalFire, Local Tribal Contacts, Advisory
Groups, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Media, Office of Emergency Services, Fish and
Game, Fish and Wildlife Service, youth sports groups, seniors, housing providers, non-profits,
interested people on EIR distribution list, and more.
Stakeholder interviews:
Interview key community leaders, Council members, Advisory body members, etc.
Community Workshops:
Hold workshops at key points in the process to inform/educate and solicit feedback. Use
breakout sessions, graphics, walking tours, interactive sessions to get input. Charrettes may be
used for key design areas.
SS 2 - 21
General Plan Update Process Attachment 1 —Project Plan
Farmers'Market
Set up an information booth at Thursday and Saturday Farmers' Market and distribute
newsletters, answer questions, get people involved.
Public Hearings &Study Sessions
Advisory bodies and Council.
Other considerations:
Are translation services during meetings and outreach in other language(s) for written materials
needed? If so, which languages? Spanish would be most likely need.
City Hall/919 Palm Open House Displays:
Have updates and on-going display area for"P1anSLO" process in City Hall and 919 Palm
S52 - 22
General Plan Update Process Attachment 1 _Project Plan
0 00
a a
r -
Ng �
a a
� 7
Q Q
Z Z
O O
a .a
N� �
c a
LL
C ❑ Q.
.E z z
E o
w ¢ - a
CL 2;
a 4.
M U-
m z _ Z
= o 0
c-
a a'
Q S1 O O ^ N N O
LO a s �
c _
LL
� t
p�O V Oi Q 0 O O CN
co
y
oit
65 LO CO
N
V0.
0ct a8a° w L �' `. 3Lu lz ?L
SS2 - 2'
C,
Dear Mayor Romero and Council,
Due to a long planned family vacation, I am regret that I am unable to testify in person
regarding this important issue. It is time to update where needed, but it is also important
to retain existing language in the Land Use and Circulation Elements which has served us
well over the years. These two Elements are crucial to our General Plan, our
"consitution."
I am glad that significant community input is being proposed by staff. A Citizens
Advisory Committee is a good idea. However, it is crucial that it consist only of
residents of San Luis Obispo, like our advisory bodies.
While many people care about the futureof our city, only the residents are allowed to vote
for Mayor and City Council. Reidents are the true stakeholders, and must not be
displaced in this process by people who live outside our city. People who live elsewhere
may have a very different vision for our city than do the people who actually live here.
Also, I urge you to require staff to produce a legislative draft which shows all of the
proposed additions/deletions in relation to the existing text.. This will keep the process
completely transparent and enable council and residents to know exactly what changes in
language are proposed.
Simply tossing out the present Land Use and Circulation Elements and writing a new
ones in whole cloth, such as happened with the Open Space Element, would cause much
confusion and wasted time for everyone. No confusing "Matrix" please! Keep the
process open, simple and clear, and build community trust..
Thank you,
RED FILE
RECEIVED MEETING AGENDA
Jan Howell Marx AUG 18 2008 DATE420TEM # S SILL
265 Albert Drive SLO CITY CLERK
San Luis Obispo CA
4d rtgAl
5kCOUNCIL lid CDD DIR
a CAO IT FIN DIR
ACAO 3 FIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY PW DIR
M CLERK/ORIG POLICE CHF
❑ DEPTEADS M REC DIR
EP UTIL DIR
lnkwa HR DIR
CAO
4- Clevk-
W
_ l
Residents for Quality neighborhoods
P.O. Box 12604•San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 RECEIVED
RED FILE AUG 18 2008
MEETING AGENDA SL CITY CLERK
DATEZEM # 2.
io COUNCIL CDD DIR
CAO FIN DIR
b ACAO FIRE CHIEF
le ATTORNEY PW DIR
DATE: August 18, 2008 `A CLERK/ORIQ POLICE CHF
TO: San Luis Obispo City Council ❑ DEPT HEADS REC DIR
VIA: Hand Delivery111HRUTfL
D RIR
MEETING DATE: 8-19-08, ITEM # SS-2 L @.ou
SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION TO DISCUSS A PROPOSED 2009-11 GENERAL-PLAN
UPDATE PROCESS
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
The issue before you is a request to approve "the fundamentals" of a proposed process to
update the City's Land Use, Circulation, and Park and Recreation Elements.
The primary purpose of the general plan update process and the resulting general plan should
be to get input from and represent the wishes of the of San Luis Obispo city residents. This
most critical "fundamental" is neither stated nor implemented in the proposed plan before you.
In this plan, the terms "residents", "citizens", "stakeholders", "community" and "public" are
used interchangeably when, in fact, they are not the same. Citizens are, by definition,
residents. Stakeholders may not be City residents, but, they have a large presence in the
planning process, often representing development or business interests. "Input" and "buy in"
from non-resident stakeholders is highly desirable, however, it is not the primary purpose of
either the general plan process or the general plan. The proposed plan [Agenda Report, p.SS2-
3] states that the general plan process for charting a vision and plan for growth "must be
based on community participation and stakeholder'buy-in'." What about resident buy in?
A "resident-based process" begins with an early survey of residents to identify issues and
create a "baseline" of their desires and wishes for the community. All council and mayoral
candidates supported this approach for the current update at RQN's last City Council
candidates forum. This approach is not clearly incorporated in the plan.
An early survey of residents. was the critical component in the City's last Land Use. Element
update. It is attached for your convenience.
August 18, 2008
RQN - Study Session Re: General Plan Update
Page 2
We strongly support re-using the same survey with perhaps a few additional questions added
to cover new issues. Comparing resident responses to the same questions regarding issues
such as growth, traffic, air quality etc. is also the only accurate way to answer staffs question
of whether the community's values have changed. "Knowing what the community vision is and
how it may have changed will guide the scoping of the update process." [Agenda Report, p.
SS2-111. Paying a consultant to write a new survey will not answer that question and is
certainly not economical.
Taking town hall meetings into the neighborhoods is also good public policy. This was also
done in the City's last Land Use Element update and should be done in this update process.
In a "resident based process" the clear majority of "Citizens Advisory Committee" members
must represent city residents. Task forces in which the majority of members represent non-
resident "stakeholders" are by definition not "resident-based". In discussing the "Citizens
advisory committee membership" the plan before you refers to the challenge of choosing
among the"multitude of stakeholder groups ". [Agenda Report, p. SS2-21].
There was no public participation in the preparation of this proposal [last paragraph, p. SS2-5].
It is clear to us that this proposed plan is not resident-based.
We, therefore, respectfully request that you continue the discussion and give direction to staff
that the primary purpose of the general plan update process and the resulting general plan
shall be to get input from and represent the wishes of the people who live in this City. The
update process plan must be rewritten to reflect this.
This is the only way that the general plan will reflect the desires and wishes of the residents
who will live with the resulting growth, air quality, traffic and other impacts.
Respectfully submitted,
Brett Cross
Chairperson, RQN
Attachment "A"
City of San Luis Obispo
OPINION SURVEY
SUMMARY OF OPEN COMMENT RESPONSES
The city's May 1988 general opinion survey included a section at the end for respondents
to write any comments they desired concerning the survey, development, or local
government issues. Responses to the structured questions have been reported previously.
Below are a listing and tally of ideas included in the open-comments section. The tally
attempts to reflect each idea mentioned, including when a person combined several ideas
in one statement. About one-quarter of the 585 forms returned had comments.
Several comments were difficult to categorize, and there were many variations on basic
themes. City staff believes the tally is useful as an indication of concerns that people
were most willing to express or most anxious to emphasize. However,•staff does not
recommend using the tally separately from the results of the structured questions to
assess overall citizen preferences.
A selection of quotes from the comments follows the listing and tally.
Subiec
F
rOninion (number commenting)
Air quality
Protect air quality (4)
Attitudes of city residents
Residents are snobby/cold (1)
Residents are caring/involved (1)
Bicycles
More bicycle safety needed (3)
Bus service
City needs more frequent, more extensive bus service (1)
Character of city/neighborhoods
Neigborhood/architectural character are being lost ( 6)
Character has improved since 1940's (1)
City actions
Critical of specific city actions, such as speed bumps, removal of parking on.South
Street, sewer fee increase (4)
Survey Comments t
Page 2
Consultants/studies
City should not hire outside experts; should use local talent (5)
Creeks
City should protect/restore creeks (4)
Development
Development should pay for needed resources (5)
Development is not benefitting local residents (1)
Some development projects appear to get special favors or not solve problems they
create (1) —
Development pattern should be more compact (1)
Recent development has been too dense/crowded (6)
Opposed to specific development proposal (2) _
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant
Worried about Diablo plant (6)
Entertainment
City needs organized activities for teens/young adults (1)
City needs a place for large outdoor concerts (2)
°raternities —
City should crack down on fraternities (1)
3rowth
Services and resources should be provided to keep pace with growth (2)
The city has a moral responsibility to accept growth (1)
Growth is inevitable (8)
The city has been growing too fast; slow down or stop (38)
ieaitu/weir are services
City/county need better health/welfare services (2) —
lomeless
Homeless/unemployed should be made to get work or leave town (6)
City needs/should provide a homeless shelter (6)
lousing
City needs more affordable housing (some stipulated for local residents) (10)
Survey Comments
Page 3
Jobs
City needs more jobs for local residents (3)
City needs more jobs for Cal Poly graduates (2)
City needs more large employers/industry (1)
Wants job with city/county government (1)
Mission Plaza
Enjoys Mission Plaza (1)
Open spaces
Open spaces should be preserved (10)
Parking structure (recently completed on Palm Street)
Likes (4)
Does not like (6)
Planning and building procedures
Critical of planning and building procedures (7)
Planning/administration of city
Suggested correction/change of a specific item, such a lane marking, speed limit, or
water conservation (47)
Pleased overall (22)
Not pleased overall (8)
Planning standards
Suggested new or changed standard, such as parking space dimension or requiring
Spanish styli for new buildings (4)
Property maintenance
City needs property maintenance ordinance/enforcement (5)
Stores/shopping
Wants stores not available here; critical of existing stores/services (4)
City should not have more shopping centers/ should protect downtown (4)
Students
Do not allow large student households in single-family houses (9)
City should try for better relationship with students (6)
Cal Poly should accept fewer new students so current students can have acces to
facilties/courses they need to graduate (1)
Cal Poly should limit/reduce enrollment (1)
Survey Comments
Page 4
Survey
Pleased with opinion survey (40)
Crtical of opinion survey (11)
Traffic
Traffic situation is bad (8)
Voter approval
Voter approval should be required for rezonings (1)
Voter approval should be required for growth limits (1)
Other comments, including questions, illegible statements, and general philosophy of
government (5)
SELECTED QUOTES
The following are comments from the surveys, selected to show the
range of thoughts which people expressed. The quotes are not
intended to represent the numbers of people expressing certain
points of view, nor the "best statement of any particular point of —
view. (Interestingly, the ideas expressed in this survey are nearly
identical to those stated during the workshops and hearings for the
1977 general plan revision.)
Everything in life has a capacity for quality —a home, neighborhood, city, county,
Mate, country— yes, also the entire world. Exceed that capacity and quality will
it ways diminish... Let us set a shining example and not become the. victims of our own
;reed and indifference.
'he richness of the soil and the number of crops which can be grown per year [around SLO]
an hardly be matched anywhere in the world. The industrial expansion onto this land
i
fake more jobs for the people already here. Don't let people from other cities move here —
ad take jobs long-time residents need. Have more affordable housing for long-time
:sidents who can't afford to buy.
tdividuals with careers, degrees can't stay here because of the lack of jobs and the
icome level of those available. I could get paid $10,000 more per year in L.A. or S.F.
you say "take off." I don't want to; I like it here; So let the large employers -
tate on the outskirts of town or elsewhere in the county.
iankyou for your work. I grew up in SLO and it's still the best place to live!
• C I _
Survey Comments
Page 5
A year ago, my husband and I moved up here from Los Angeles to get away from smog and
traffic. I am a medical technologist and my husband is a printer so we were able to get
new jobs in this area. However, both employers pay less than LA; using the lower cost of
living here as an excuse. Except for a slightly lower housing cost, we have not
experienced any lower cost of living. Even though it's a monetary sacrifice to live
here, it is worth it for the air quality, environment, and relaxed pace of life.
I wish SLO could remain a quiet small town as it was when we moved here in 1946, but
growth is inevitable. As long as out beautiful county can accept people from all over
the world, how can we morally keep them from moving here?
Quit spending money on so-called "experts" from out of the area to figure out our needs.
Aren't our own city officials intelligent enough to make decisions?
[I have lived] all my life in SLO, 29 years now. We do not need more doctors offices.
We need houses so me and my wife can get into a house in SLO for under $120,000.
Clean air is #1 in SLO. Let's keep it this way.
Keep [development] off the hillsides and peaks!
I feel the city must have more control on the amount of new apartments. If the city
keeps growing, [it] will cease to be a desirable place to live.
I do not go downtown now unless absolutely necessary, because of the traffic and parking.
I love the environment, but the personal attitude of the majority of people here seems to
be "better than thou." People have no heart!
I suggest that all zoning changes from lower to higher density require voter approval!
In highrise apartment/condo areas [here], "neighborhood" is an unknown word.
Honestly, us students aren't as bad as ya'il think!
I would like to see less tract development, such as that located off Tank Farm and Edna,
and more individual development. I think SLO will lose some of its charm as more of
those stamped-out houses appear.
7
a
Survey Comments
Page 6
I feel it takes far too long for the city to allow building permits for projects in
neighborhoods that already have similar buildings.
Eliminate single-family homes as housing for students.
ft has to be a joint venture of county and city to control the run-away growth.
We must guard against a large airport.
Che city government should spend more time supervising the results of their actions and
ess starting new plans.
)ur biggest gripe is the tin barn at Higuera and Madonna roads. It is not worth
preserving.
Vhy does everyone comment on how difficult it is to work with the planning dept. - you
:an never get an answer that doesn't have 'ifs, ands, or buts" attached and that you
relieve won't change.
an Luis is suffering from a split personality _ we think we are a small town, ... but —
ve have growth befitting a medium to large town.
'ossibly allow Madonna to develop top of mountain.
,eep pornography and gays and astrologers out of our city if possible. —
iovernment is a complicated business, but the general public would be more involved if it _.
,s a 38 year resident of SLO county, I am dismayed at the poor planning demonstrated in
tascadero and South County. I can see the same trend in the Madonna/Laguna area.
lopping is not a high priority for me. I would rather enjoy our beautiful beaches and
ountains which can never be replaced.
think the city should organize "block committees" that would respond in civil
casters.
Survey Comments
Page 7
Areas adjacent to the city that have been proposed for annexation ... should have
affordable housing included as a condition of annexation.
I feel that thanks is due to the governing body of SLO in past and present as we have
been very fortunate. I wish ... the whole county may develop along the same lines as
SLO.
[This is] a very cold-hearted city.
[As] new areas are developed, why can't builders set aside an area to store ...campers,.
boats, horse trailers and all kinds of excess autos [otherwise] parked on the street
filling driveways and cluttering the neighborhood?
I am outraged at the way law enforcement agencies deal with students and surrounding
youth. We [fraternity members] are here to stay.
r
I grew up here and moved away in 1981 to Santa Barbara and Ventura area. I came back in
1984 to be back in a small town (which it was then). But since, I've noticed big changes
(traffic, crowding, etc.) that if I wanted, I could have stayed down south.
Taking down signs like the Rexall sign is ridiculous. Your sign ordinance not allowing
signs over a certain size is out of line.
The survey is fine, but I don't think changes will be made. They will just go along and
do as they want.
I certainly bless the 911 crew. They are the b= people in the whole town.
I think we should keep new public construction (and commercial) in line with our Spanish
Heritage.
I have a very low opinion of public employees. Through better training and education of
public employees, especially those who control use and zoning of private property, my
opinion might change. Planners, inspectors, and people who have control of permits,
etc., treat people like it They are'rude and do not appear to try and help.
What about permanently configuring the downtown like it is on Thursday nights?
i
Survey Comments
Page 8 f
I da like the new parking structure. The design & color scheme fit in just perfectly.
The parking garage looks hideousL!
I love this city and its government.
I have been working on ideas and a design for a $10,000,000 Recreation Retirement Resort
to be built in Reservoir Canyon. I have a painting of the main structure for you to see.
Please go back to standard size parking spaces instead of these ridiculous "compact"
spaces, in the city lots and garages. _
We live in a beautiful area in an island of incredible affluence. We can and should _
oupport the homeless in our midst, whether they are locals or transients.
Che homestead at the corner of South Higuera and Tank Farm is exquisite._ Let's hang on -
:o our heritage instead of bulldozing it away!
Chis may be unfair, but I can't help wonder how many of the decision makers are taking
)art in and profiting from the county wide building frenzy.
am a police officer in the L.A. area and recently purchased a town house in SLO. I
vould like to see the area stay in its present form and someday I will become a full time
esident.
believe that many of the choices given on this survey are unrealistic as they stand.
"here must be much give and take to be able to maintain the "paradise" that we have here,
ut at the same time keep up with the changing world and ways of life.
oo much "petty" politics and the same rehashing of problems. Too many late comers
eciding what is good for SLO. Too many consultants. Too many planners who feel old is
gly, Le. revolving signs, etc.
'his kind of survey should be done every five years to get the public's views.
tou should] use center of freeway divider as well as hills for sewage leach lines - keep
iem green; utilize this water!
4_
t _
Survey Comments
Page 9
A long time ago some one said "Cities have to grow or they will stagnate." County and
city supervisors all say this quote as.if it is written in concrete or as if [it] is the
absolute truth. My home town had 13000 pop[ulation] is 1943 when I went in the army and
to-day there isn't a 20% increase in population. People there are just as happy as
anyone.
City planners need to make a plan and stick to it. If you are so intent on providing a.
"tourist attraction" town, stop ... enlarging everything to city size. You really can't
have it both ways. There are enough chain hotels, fast fgod and other franchises to
indicate what's ahead: Beautiful downtown Burbank!
Survey Comments
Page 10 J
This city is so over regulated its a joke. Tree ordinances, the A.R.C. telling us what J
color to paint our buildings, what type windows to use etc. What has happened to the
rights of the owner. Is this America or Russia?
. J
San Luis Obispo is, well, San Luis Obispo- let's NOT pull a "Santa Barbara," ok, folks?
J
As the size of a city increases, diversity and choice also increase. SLO has improved in
the 14 years I've lived here —partly as a result of growth, partly as a result of city
(and other) improvement projects. I would support a city with about double the current
population (say about the size of Santa Barbara).
This is a very slanted survey - the questions are worded so as to influence the reader J
into providing the answers the Council wants to hear.
If this survey is really looked at and acted upon by the local government, this city is J
truly a cut above most of its size. Although a lot of griping goes on locally, I really
think that overall the government is doing a good job. I
Survey failed to give right answers. Example: These monster size houses (like at Laguna
Lake hillside) with 4 baths require a river of water just to fill the pipes. Who lives
in them? Two senior citizensll How crazy can it get?
The parks ... look really good. A certificate should be given to the head of the Parks
department and fellow workers for such good work._
1
We need less study and more action on the problems.
1
;ml/survcom 1
1
1
1
Opinion Survey Summary
RQN Study Session Re: General Plan Update ATTACHMENT "A"
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
OPINION SURVEY RESULTS
As part of the general plan update, the city conducted a survey of residents' opinions on
broad development issues. The survey was mailed on May 16, 1988, to 2,096 of the city's
roughly 17,000 residential addresses. One week later, reminder postcards were mailed.
Each residential address in the city had an equal chance of receiving a survey form. By
the May 31 deadline, 585 (28 percent) of the mail-back survey forms had been returned.
Statisticians consider this number of responses adequate fora valid sample.
Questions and responses are summarized below. The numbers in brackets at the end of each
question or subsection show the percentages.of returned survey forms with some response.
(To encourage respondents to make choices, the "no opinion" option was not included on
the survey form, though it was included in the tabulations.)
This report does not include analysis or comments on the results. City staff will
prepare a separate analysis and commentary, probably in combination with results from
other methods to obtain citizen opinions --the neighborhood workshops and committee
meetings.
I. "How would you rate the overall quality of life in San Luis Obispo?"
[97.64bj
High - 77%
Medium - 22%
Low
/ ( 2• )"What do you see as San Luis Obisao's reatest problem?"
This was an open-ended question. Staff categorized the write-in responses. Some
People indicated more than one item. . All named items were included in the
tabulation.
By far the most fre uend mentioned item was excessive growth (247 responses),
followed by traffic and road conditions 9housing a or a i ity and condition
(45), water availability (46), job opportunities and wages (38), availability of
parking (29), and homeless isues (27). About 40 other items were mentioned
--including Diablo Canyon and other public safety issues with each having fewer
than 18 responses.
3• "What do you see as San Luis Obispo's greatest strength?"
This also was an open-ended question. The most frequently mentioned item was the
natural it and open space (199 responses), followed by
geographic location/climate (158), the sense of community and cooperation (108),
Presence of colleges (24), and downtown (18).
a9Ai
i
This question listed 13 aspects of quality of life and asked whether each was "very,"
"somewhat," or "not" important The categories with a majority responding "very
important" (and the percentage responses) were:
Natural environment LS02%)
Crime levels (8
Property maintenance and litter control (72%)
Pace of life (61%)
Educational opportunities (61%)
Downtown character and activities (54%)
Convenience in getting around (51%)
The three aspects with the highest percentage responding somewhat important" were:
Recreation/entertainment opportunities (54%)
Shopping opportunities (50%)
Opportunities to participate in government decisions (48%)
The three categories receiving the highest percentages for "not important" were:
Cultural diversity (26%)
S�hopp�i n1 f
Job opportunities (17
[Percentages responding for each aspect ranged from 98.5% to 95%.]
5. This question asked people how satisfied they were with each of the aspects of
quality of life listed in question number 4. Possible options included "very
satisified,". "neutral" and "very dissatisfied."
More than one-half the respondents were vvy sates isfied. with these aspects:
Natural environment (71%)
Pace of life (65%)
Educational opportunities (64%)
Downtown character and activities (60%)
Aspects with more than one-half "neutral" responses were:
Cultural diversity (64%)
Opportunities to participate ih government decisions (63%)
Job opportunities (60%)
Recreation or entertainment opportunities (51%)
The three aspects with the highest percentages of "very dissatisfied" responses were:
Housing opportunities (31%)
Convenience in getting around (25%)
Job opportunities (25%)
(The housing and jobs aspects also received the lowest percentages of "very
satisfied" responses: 19% and 15%, respectively.)
[Percentages responding for each aspect ranged from 97.1% to 95.2%.]
6. This question asked people to name one area of the city the
The three most frequently named places, with the corresponding
percentar
enjoyed.
were:
D g percent of responses,
Downtown (33%)
Mission plaza (24%)
Creek areas (15%)
Other places named were Laguna Lake Park, other parks, peaks and hillsides, and the
Old Town area, each with less than 8%. Some people named more than one place; ail
were tabulated. [This question was answered by 86.2%.]
7. This question asked people to name one area of the city they did not enjoy. The
three most frequently named places, with the corresponding percent of responses,
were:
Lower Higuera/South Street area (23%)
Mall/shopping centers (13%)
Downtown (9%).
Other places named were Mitchel Park, Laguna area, and airport/Broad Street, each
with less than 8%. Some people named more than one place; all were tabulated. [This
question was answered by 64.8%.]
0"Which of the following approaches to determining allowable growth in the city do you
support?" (99.1%]
Respondents could indicate support for one or more of the following approaches. The
percent of survey forms with a favorable response to each approach are listed below.
Keep growth.within available resources (such as water supplies): 85%
Avoid harm to the natural environment (such as air quality): 79%
Set a total population number which would not be exceeded: 26%
Set a boundary which the city would not grow beyond: 30%
Set a maximum growth rate: 46%
Let the overall growth of the community follow from specific goals (for example,
more manufacturing jobs, or preserving certain open space areas): 33%
Ten percent indicated "Do not set growth limits."
1
I ;
D -
the city was to set a maximum population size or a boundary to outward growth,
which gjU of the following would you prefer?" [97.4]
The possible choices and percent indicating support for each were:
A reduction in city size or population: 5%
No or very little increase in city size or population: 35%
A modest increase in city size or population: 39%
A substantial increase in city size or population: 2%
I do not favor such limits: 17%
(Does not total to 100% due to rounding.)
10. "If the city was to set a maximum city growth rate, which one of the following would
you prefer?" [97.3%]
The possible choices and percent indicating support for each were:
No growth: 15%
Some increase, but much slower than the state or the county as a whole: 51%
Growing no faster than San Luis Obispo County as a whole: 19%
I do -not favor such a limit: 15%
11). economic
reserving the natural qualities of an area can require limits on development and
growth. What limits are you willing to set for the following types of
development, in order to help maintain qualities such as open space and relatively
clean air and uncrowded parks and roads?"
The percentages of respondents indicating each choice are shown below. Totals may
not equal 100% due to rounding. [Percentages responding to each item ranged from
97.1 to 94.1
Extent of Develooment
No A little Much No
Tyne of development More More More Limit
a. Housing 21 60 12 6
b. Tourist/visitor serving 32 43 13' 12
C. Manufacturing 33 49 13 5
d. Shopping/stores 35 46 14 6
C. Cultural/entertainment 13 47 26 1.3
f. Medical, legal,
financial services 46 37 8 8
g. Government agencies/ .�
institutions 55 36 4 3
D12. Accommodating development and economic growth can lead to reduced.quality in other
o t e. ow muc are ou willing to let t e o owing undesirable factors
increase, to accommodate additional deve opment and economic growt .
The percentages of respondents indicating each choice are shown below. Totals may
not equal 100% due to rounding. [Percentages responding to each item ranged from
97.8 to 94.5.]
Extent of increase
None A Little Substantial
Air pollution 83 15 2
b. Car/truck traffic noise _.. 30 3
c. Aircraft noise 54 40 6
Crowding/delay:
d. On streets & roads 60 36 4
e. At parking actliaus 52 42 6
f. At parks or recreation
facilities 38 52 10
Development on:
g. Peaks, hillsides 66 26 8
h. Farmland, ranchland 5i 41 9
i. Creeks, marshes 67 27 6
j. Overall intensity
of development 46 50 5
k. Overall pace of life 51 43 6
13. "San Luis Obispo and the surrounding area include about one-half of the jobs in the
whole county, and about one-quarter of the houses and apartments. The imbalance
between jobs and housing results in commuting. How much effort do .you think should
go into each of the following approaches to deal with this situation7"
The percentages of respondents indicating each choice are shown below. Totals may
not equal 100% due to rounding. [Percentages responding to each item ranged from
97.1 to 94.4.1
No Some Much
Effort Effort Effort
a. Expand roads and parking facilities. 17 56 27
b. Discourage commuting by individual
drivers and encourage use of busses, 9 34 57
van pools, and carpools.
C. Discourage additional jobs and
college enrollment in San Luis Obispo. 51 31 18
d. Encourage housing development, in
San Luis Obispo. 45 37 17
This question also included a fill-in space for other methods to deal with commuting
pressures. Very few respondents indicated other methods, and some filled in things
they wanted or did not want which were not related to commuting.
14. This question asked people to indicate which of the following forms of development
they supported to accommodate whatever new housing would be allowed in the city.
Respondents could indicate support for any of the following approaches. The possible
approaches and the percent of survey forms with a favorable response to each approach
are listed below. [95.2%]
Using vacant lots in existing neighborhoods for buildings like those which have
been built in the neighborhood: 81%
In existing neighborhoods, using vacant lots for larger or more closely spaced
buildings than have been built there: 14%
In existing neighborhoods, replacing small buildings with larger ones: 13%
At the city's edges, having small or widely spaced buildings: 41%
At the city's edges, having large or closely spaced buildings: 13%
Replacing commercial buildings with housing: 13%
15. This question asked people to indicate which of the following forms of development
they supported to accommodate whatever new stores, banks, and offices would be
allowed in the city. Respondents could indicate support for any of the following
approaches. The possible approaches and the percent of survey forms with a favorable
response to each approach are listed below. [93.2%J
In existing commercial areas, using vacant lots for new buildings generally like
smaller ones which have been built there: 65%
In existing commercial areas, replacing small buildings with larger ones: 37%
At the city's edges, having small buildings: 28%.
At the city's edges, having large buildings: 21%
Replacing housing with commercial buildings: 3%
16. This.question asked people to indicate whether they wanted less, the-same, or more of
the following types of land uses in certain areas, compared with current conditions.
The percent indicating each choice is listed. Totals may not equal 1.00% due to
rounding. [Percentages responding to each item ranged from 97.1 to 94.9.]
Less Same More
a. Small second dwellings ("granny units")
in areas that are mostly individual houses. 28 44 27
b. Specialty stores (such as books or clothing)
in small neighborhood shopping centers. 20 54 25
C. Offices (doctors, lawyers) in small
neighborhood shopping centers. 26 55 18
d. Nursing homes; churches, or schools 27 57 15
in areas that are mostly individual houses.
e. Bars and nightclubs downtown. 42 49 9
f. Restaurants and movie theaters downtown 14 69 17
g. In residential areas, home businesses with no
employees other than residents of the house or
apartment, but involving small-scale product
assembly or customer visits 26 53 21
h. Convenience stores in residential areas 28 57. 15
i. Auto repair downtown or in shopping centers 29 63 8
i. Small city parks in residential areas 3 31 65
This question also included a fill-in space for other items. Very few respondents
indicated other items. Responses were not tabulated.
717.��44
his question asked whe t shouldrovide less, about the same, or more of
categories of service. For seventeen categories, a majority o responeats
favored the same level of service. These categories and the corresponding percentage
responses, wer`�
Flood prevention/control (73%)
Sidewalk improvements (71%)
Bus service/shelters; Recreation programs; Sewage system(each 67%)
Emergency services/disaster response; Law enforcement for traffic safety; Public
art (each 64%)
Law enforcement for. nuisances/zoning; Street maintenance (each 61%)
Street trees & street landscaping (60%)
Parking downtown (58%)
Parks & playfields (56%)
Preserving historic buildings; Law enforcement for violence/thefts; Street
widening/signals (each 55%)
Performing arts (51%)
three categories, a majority of respondents favored more ser
Keeping peaks and hillsides open (56%)
Additional water sources (51%)
Keeping creeks and marshes open (51%)
In four categories, a majority did not want the same level of service, but there was
no majority favoring either more or less service:
Category Less Same More
Bicycle paths 10 43 46
Keeping farm/ranch land open 11 42 46
Housing for low income 23 40 36
Shelter for homeless 24 37 39
For no category did a majority of respondents favor a lower level of service.
However, the three categories receiving the greatest percentage favoring a lower
level of service, and the corresponding percentage responses, were:
Shelter for homeless (24%)
Housing for low-income (23%)
Public art (14%)
This question also asked if more of a certain type of service was favored, should it
be funded by paying more in taxes or fees, or by diverting money from other services?
For the three categories with a maJority favoring more service, the distribution of
fun ing�erence responses are indicated below. These numbers are the percentages
of those favoring more service for each category who prefer the indicated funding
method.
Category Pay More Divert Money Both
Keeping peaks and hillsides open 52 42 2
Additional water sources 63 34 2
v Keeping creeks and marshes open 57 40 3
Disregarding preferences on levels of service, the three categories with the highest
percentage support for paying more in taxes or fees are indicated below. These
numbers are the percentages of those favoring more service for each category who
prefer the indicated funding method.
i�
Performing arts (70%)
Law enforcement concerning violence/thefts (64%)
Additional water sources (63%)
Again disregarding preferences on levels of service, the four categories with the
highest percentage support for diverting money from other categories were:
Preserving historic buildings (53%)
Housing for low income (52%)
Law enforcement concerning nuisances/zoning (52%)
Flood prevention/control (50%)
(Percentages responding to each category ranged from 91.1 t9 96.9.1
18. This open-ended question asked people to name the facility or service not available
in San Luis Obispo which they would.like to have. Very few respondents indicated
something. A few mentioned things which are already available to some extent (south
county bus connection, job placement service, art museum). Responses were not
tabulated.
Questions 19 and 20, concerning tenancy and employment status, were to check whether
survey respondents were.similar to the population as a whole. About 35% of respondents
were renters, while the latest (1980) census figures indicated 53% of the city's
households rented. A comparison of employment status shows that retired people were
somewhat over-represented, while students were under-represented:
Survey respondents C1 y adult population (1 980 census)
Employed or looking for
work 52% 46%
College students 15% 31%
Retired and others not
in labor force 33% 23%
Responses of the various subgroups were compared with those from the whole sample to see
if the different participation rates by the subgroups substantially affected the results
summarized above. The major conclusions are noted below.
Students
The number of students responding (66) was probably not sufficient fora valid opinion
sample for all gddsl$
Students agreed that the natural environment was very important as an.aspect of quality
of life. However, in comparison with the whole population, students saw educational
opportunities and housing opportunities as more important, and property maintenance and
pace of life as less important. Levels of satisfaction with the various aspects were
very similar to the whole sample.
Concerning growth approaches, students strongly supported avoiding harm to the natural
environment (91%), while their preferences for city size and growth rate were very
similar to the whole sample. Students' willingness to accept limits on various types of
development or reductions in quality-of-life features also was similar to the whole
sample.
Concerning ways to deal with jobs-housing imbalance, students would give a little more
emphasis to roads and parking facilities and less effort to discouraging jobs and college
enrollment.
Regarding types of land uses, students generally agreed with the whole sample, but were
more tolerant of downtown bars and nightclubs and home businesses.'
Retired
Retired people saw property maintenance as a little more important and downtown character
and activities as less important than the whole sample. They were slightly less
satisfied with the natural environment.
4
Concerning growth, retired people most favored keeping growth within available
resources. Their opinions on city size and growth rate were similar to the whole
sample. They were slightly more willing than the whole sample to have limits on cultural
and entertainment facilities, while their willingness to accept reductions in
quality-of-life features was about the same.
Unlike students, retired people tended to favor fewer bars and nightclubs downtown, and
they were less supportive of home businesses. Interestingly, they were also slightly
less supportive of "granny units."
Renters
Renters were somewhat less supportive of growth limits based on city size or growth rate,
and they were a little less willing to accept limited housing development. (However, a
substantial majority --64%- favored growing much slower than the county or the state, if
at all.) They would be slightly more accepting of increases in intensity of development,
but matched the whole sample in opposition to more air pollution and traffic noise.
Comments
The survey concluded with an open-ended opportunity to comment on the survey, the
subjects it covered, or any other items of local interest. Several people wrote comments
covering a wide range of subjects and points of view. City staff has not yet tried to
tabulate or summarize these comments, but appreciates the thoughts people shared. Some
quotes from the comments may be included in the commentary.
Tabulations
This summary of survey results is intended to report the basic findings in *n easily
understood form. Complete survey tabulations .are available for reference at the
Zommunity Development Department in City Hali, 990 Palm Street (P.O. Box 8100), San Luis
Obispo, California, 93403-8100; phone 805-549-7160.
m 1/results
RED FILE RECEIVED
MEETING AGENDA
DAYE.$AA ITEM # SS 2 August 18, 2008 AUG 18 2008
SLO CITY CLERK
Regarding the General Plan Update Process
August 19"' Council Meeting
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
A cynic once said: "Every elected official is aware of the value of`input' from
lobbyists and stakeholders —especially as they apply to campaign
contributions." While input from `stakeholders and lobbyists' is certainly
welcome in the LUE update process, the most basic principle of the General Plan
is that it must be primarily based on what the residents of this city want for their
future -for they are the ones who will live with the results.
The last update of the LUE established a base-line survey of what our residents
wanted for their city and all subsequent proposals were primarily based on that.
In addition to the survey, we did extensive outreach into neighborhoods in order
to create meaningful resident participation. I am pleased that Residents for
Quality Neighborhoods are speaking up in support of a resident-based process
but am very disappointed that staffs proposed process did not even begin with
input from the very residents who will be living with the results of these decisions.
The totally unnecessary costs of what happened during the update of the 2006
Open Space Element should also not be repeated. At a time when the city is
under financial stress, you should be even more conscious of finding cost saving
ways to do this job...reuse of the initial survey will give you a great base to
determine if residents' values have changed, thus accomplishing your objective.
An economical update process is to begin the actual writing of the document
using the existing LUE (after summarizing any new information) and putting the
proposed changes side-by-side on that one document. That way, residents can
easily see, in one document, what changes are being proposed. This eliminates
the cost of preparing a separate matrix of changes or the costs for additional and
separate legislative drafts that are also very difficult for the public to follow.
I strongly support RQN's recommendation in their letter to you.
Sincerely,
5d COUNCIL I
�1 CDD DIR U
IS CAOEYE FIN DIR
®ACAO [� FIRE CHIEF Peg Pinard
M ATTORNEY [!A PW DIR Former Mayor, City of San Luis Obispo
® CLERK/ORIG 3 POLICE CHF
13 DEPTI EADS 11 REC DIR
1 UTIL DIR
[$ HR DIR
v- CkU